Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned content (range, value, fees, in/out of range), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about empty results or value units.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and scope before the returned fields. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool, the description tells the agent the scope and the key return fields, and annotations cover safety; no output schema exists so this is the only cue to the payload. Missing only edge-case behavior (no positions found, value denomination), which is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented, including chain enum guidance pointing at chord_chains and the address format per chain. The description only restates 'a wallet' and 'one chain', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names the resource (liquidity positions) with explicit scope: one wallet, one chain, and lists the fields carried. It implicitly separates itself from chord_lp_pools (pool discovery vs. a wallet's positions), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this versus chord_lp_pools, chord_wallet, or chord_wallet_trades, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the purpose text.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.